User talk:Heroin123

Heroin123, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Heroin123! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Doctree (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

22:05, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

June 2017

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
For help, take a look at the introduction.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code was changed by Heroin123 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.952709 on 2017-06-03T14:15:52+00:00 .

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 14:15, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at United Daughters of the Confederacy shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Tornado chaser (talk) 16:36, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

June 2017

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:55, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Heroin123 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The edits on United Daughters of the Confederacy and Bill C-16 were not disruptive I was warned of edit warring on United Daughters of the Confederacy so stopped reverting as suggested. Heroin123 (talk) 16:59, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Checkuser verified abuser of multiple accounts. Now indefinitely blocked. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 17:11, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

You were edit warring on multiple articles, vandalized a SPI, and harassed another editor. This block should have probably been an indef. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:03, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The edit of SPI was a little joke. I did not harass him I just stated that my edits were not vandalism and I stopped the edit warring after the two reverts and the warning. I am very sorry if I offended Morty C-137 or appeared as i I was targeting him I was just defending my self.Heroin123 (talk) 17:05, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Heroin123 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Insert your reason to be unblocked here

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. SQL ^{Query me!} 03:58, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.